Hey, if it weren't for me these threads would just be Democrat circle jerks

But OK, let me hear your position on foreign policy regardless of Obama's policy or anyone's else. My position is basically the same as Ron Paul's, bring all the troops home and being willing to trade with any country.

Hey, if it weren't for me these threads would just be Democrat circle jerks

But OK, let me hear your position on foreign policy regardless of Obama's policy or anyone's else. My position is basically the same as Ron Paul's, bring all the troops home and being willing to trade with any country.

That's not a foreign policy, is the thing. It's a principleóan super extremist principle at thatóbut policies are the real-life implementation, through many material and political channels, of principles. Nothing short of complete autocracy would enable that to be realized, and if we lived in a Ron Paul dictatorship where he tried to shut down the military, there would be a coup and he would die.

The point is not that that's too idealistic; I know you will say better to vote on principles. The point is that it's not ANYTHING, because it's not a model of governance.

Guess what country doesn't have 700 military bases all over the world.....

ChinaJapanIndiaGreat BritainFranceGermanyRussia has about 10 military bases outside of their mainland from what I can tell.

Yeah, I'm basically naming any big country with a military, and they are doing just fine. Running an empire that spreads all around the world is not a great model of governance and a huuuuuuuuge waste of taxpayer's dollars and it only results in more hostility towards the USA and blowbacks like 9/11. Ron Paul doesn't want to shut down the military, he just wants to bring them home and focus on defending their country and not attack other countries. That would not result in a coup because the public hates wars and the military actually likes Paul, he gets more donations from military personnel than all the other candidates put together.

Hey man, if there were any of the transcendental revolutionary recidivism that characterised early Italian and Romanian fascism in the modern political environment, I'd be out there in the streets, red/green/blue/black-shirted and elbows flying. It's only the fact that modern politics have lost their mystical flavor that leads me into sedate Scandinavian-style socialistic democracy.

Yeah, but there's absolutely nothing substantial behind it but some words on a web page from an anonymous source. The people Obama has killed are very real and are somebody's sons and daughters. Not that I expect any of you to even try to defend his actions because they are abhorrent. I'm still just dumbfounded that proposing auditing the Federal Reserve or repealing the Civil Rights Act is considered crazy, but killing innocent people, including children, is somehow........ not crazy?

Repealing the Civil Rights Act is an act of abject racism and disrespect for fundamental human rights that can only, ONLY be remotely described as anything else if we accept that it is motivated by a deranged ideological fundamentalism that demands absolute dogmatic purity over any and all rational, practical, or moral concerns, and if you don't understand this you need to read more books.

Can we just agree that all of us collectively have the most nauseating turgid boring politics ever.

We keep trying to do that but then Babar keeps saying we're complicit in mass murder

Well, I mean, we are, but we wouldn't be any less so by voting for Ron Paul.

Babar, at best, the argument you're presenting is "A Ron Paul presidency would be an increment step towards positive change in US foreign policy" (at worst you're presenting, "Vote for Ron Paul ????? PROFIT"), but you're utterly failing to present a convincing argument for why that increment step would at all be worth the many, many immediate and horrific effects of a Ron Paul presidency, especially w/r/t women, the poor, and minorities.

edit NB we're also assuming that he wouldn't just move to the center and operate as a more or less standard Republican, a definite possibility, especially if the GOP still controlled the House.

For the 30th time, change will never happen if you keep voting for the establishment.

Holy shit I can't believe I'm weighing in on this one but:

The things that would have to change to bring about the kind of reality you're in favor of are not things that would change if we voted for Ron Paul. We don't just get a brand new set of procedures with a different president. I mean, again, I'm just saying the same things everybody else has said, that you refuse to acknowledge.

Can we just agree that all of us collectively have the most nauseating turgid boring politics ever.

We keep trying to do that but then Babar keeps saying we're complicit in mass murder

Well, I mean, we are, but we wouldn't be any less so by voting for Ron Paul.

Babar, at best, the argument you're presenting is "A Ron Paul presidency would be an increment step towards positive change in US foreign policy" (at worst you're presenting, "Vote for Ron Paul ????? PROFIT"), but you're utterly failing to present a convincing argument for why that increment step would at all be worth the many, many immediate and horrific effects of a Ron Paul presidency, especially w/r/t women, the poor, and minorities.

edit NB we're also assuming that he wouldn't just move to the center and operate as a more or less standard Republican, a definite possibility, especially if the GOP still controlled the House.

women - He doesn't want to repeal Roe v Wade if that's what you're getting at. He wants abortion to be handled at a state level and I think that's the best solution to this controversial subject.minorities - I think a government that doesn't categorize people into minorities and rather embraces the individual would be much better equipped to achieve racial harmony. Plus, the federal war on drugs is racist and he wants to end that.the poor - This is where we fundamentally disagree. I think free market along with individual and economic liberty is best for the poor, you think welfare programs run by government and funded by taxpayers is best for the poor. To each his own but keep in mind that Ron Paul isn't gonna touch social security in his first year. It's not like when he's sworn in he's gonna cancel all the welfare programs in a day. He realizes that people have become dependent on these programs so a long transitional period would have to take place and the first step is giving people the option to opt out of the entitlement programs, not just cut them right away. That would be absurd. But hey, if you think welfare programs are effective by all means vote for Obama, but remember by doing so you are also voting for war, diminished individual liberty and a bigger deficit.

As the primaries roll in and herald Ron Paul's inevitable slide from unelectability back into obscurity, we can only hope that consequently we will be forced less to listen to people rave about how the stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.